Dismissed

M/s. B. R. Traders v. State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC13 Mar 2023CRLP/5467/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a cheque dishonour case. It declined to quash due to discrepancies in outstanding amounts, directing the trial court to decide the facts during the trial. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; trial court directed to dispose of the case within three months.

M/s. B. R. Traders Vs State of Telangana and another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5467 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. B. R._TrarlSrs, Rep. by its Proprietor Swetha Pitti, Wio. Pankaj pitti, Aged 40 years, Rl/o. Plot No. 27, Sri Sai Enclave, Trimulgherry, Secundeiabad.^-

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad. 2. The State Bank of lndia, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Katedan Branch, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS/COM PLAINANT

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the CC No. 106/2021 on the file of XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendra Nagar, registered against the petitioner alleging an offence U/s 138 of Nl Act

¶14

l.A. NO: 'l OF 2022

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings in CC No. 1OO|2O21 on the file of XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendra Nagar, registered against the petitloner alleging an offence U/s^'138 of Nl Act

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C M R VELU, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri KAJA SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5467 OF 2022

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal PetiLion is filcd rrndr:r Si:ction 482 of the Codc of Criminal l)roccdure , 1973 (for shorl '(lr P.C.') by the petitioner company represented by its Proprictor, Lo quash the procccdings in C.C.No. l06 ol 2O2l on the lile of XIV Additionarl Mctropolitan Maistratc, Rajcndra Nagar.'lhe offerr<:cs allcgcd arc undcr Scction^,l38 & 1 42 ol Lh,c Ncotiablc Instrumcrr ts Act

¶21

l'Icerrd learnecl counscl larr ihc potil.ioncr, lcarned Additional l\iblic Prosccutor lor the respondcnl -- State ar-r ci counscl for thc 2,-d rcspondcnt/complainant

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the prosecution launched by the 2"d respondent Bank cannot bc maintaincd for thc rcason of therc bcing no outstanding as mentioned in thc chcquc. Though the cherlue was sent lor clearancc of Rs.8C,86,925/ accr>rding to thc bank statcmcnt of the^2"a rcspondcrri Bank. which is during

¶23

-I

¶24

tlre period 01.ll.2O2O^{to 30. I l.2O2O, thc Iizrbilitf is showu as} 72,73,704.O5. Irurttrcr,^{in thc t'toticcgiven bl' thc crlunsel lor} the Bank on^{21 .1O.2O2O, it ismentioned as 74 lakhs} outstanding.^{For the said reason,when thc amount is more} than thc outstanding^{amount,prosccution cannotbe} maintained under^{Sectionl3U of the Negotiable Instruments} Act.

¶25

Learned Counsel for^{thcpetitioner relicd onthe} Judgment of Madras^{l-ligh Court in AnguParameshwari} Textiles u. Sri Raiam^{andCo. 1' l)clhi IlighCourt} Judgment rn Lgca^{Finance Limited u. State &' Anr'21 and} Kerala High Court^{Judgmentin John u'Alosiouf} ' Accordingly, prayed^{to quash the proceedings'}

¶26

On the other hand learned^{counsel appearingfor the 2"d} respondent Bank would^{submit that the notice issued by the} Bank Advocate states that^{Rs.74 lakhs is the outstanding} which has to be paid along^{with intercst and that total}

¶27

| 2001( 105) comp cas I 86

¶28

'zol6^ACD8z:

¶29

'^{20 to(2)KLT 90 l}

¶30

t t

¶31

amount comcs to thc arnount mcntioncd irr thc chi_.quc. He furLhcr submits that according to Lhc t]ank Statemcnt liled along u,ith thc r:omplaint. Lhc liability amount is shown u,hich tallics with the chcque amount

¶32

In all the three Judgments which are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, subscqucnt to issuance of chequc. parl of Lhc amount was paid and accepted by the complainant thcrcin. Undcr thosc circunlstancos, the Court hclcl that sincc Ll-rc oul.stancling u,as lcss tharn rvhat is mcn Lioncd in tht' chcqucs, procce dings wcrc quashcd

¶33

In the present case, statement is provided by the Bank belorc the Court below along with complainl, which is not hled. Another statement is provided by the petitioner herein and also Lhe Bank noticc rcflccting dilfcren t amounts AS Though, thcre are discrepancies in [hc outstalding claimed by lhe petitioner, the same cannot be decided in the quash proceedings to determinc whcthcr Lhc claim of amount covered by the cheque is correct or thc amounts mentioned in the legal notice and the statements fiIcd by thc petitioner.

¶34

¶35

'l'hese aspects have Lo bc agitated bcforc^{the concerncd trial} Court. Sincc^{thc case is of the} .vear^{202 1, this Court deems it} appropriate [o^{dircct thc trial Court to disposc of the case} within a period of^{three months and draw conciusions on the} basis of the cvidence^{ad cluced during the course of trial'} However, in^{thc cvent of thc petitioncr hling an application} under Section^{205 of Cr.P.C',to be represented by a counsel'} the sarne sha11^{be: considcrcd by the Trial court bf imposing} condilions without^{hindranccto thc trial'}

¶36

OB Accordingly, the^{Criminal Pctition is disposed olf}

¶37

Miscellaneous^{Pctitions, pendingifany, shall stand}

¶38

closed

¶39

SD/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// L]D SECTION OFF]CER

¶40

To,

¶41

,| The XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,^{Rajendra Nagar.}

¶42

2 Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court^{for the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad [OUTI

¶43

3 One CC to SRI C M R VELU Advocate IOPUC] 4 One CC to SRI KAJA SRINIVASA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies

BSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310312023

ORDER

t liE S fi
\ (L 15 (i
c
17 AP[l ziln
1-_1.
'r --- -

¶50

GRLP.No.5467 of 2022

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE CRLP

¶52

q
<br><br>6
'y7grq

M/s. B. R. Traders v. State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. B. R. Traders v. State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amgoth Raju Naik Vs The State of Telangana

Gottipati Chandra Sekhar Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Karlapudi Babu Prakash Vs State of Telangana and another

Mohammed Asif Vs The State of Telangana

N. v. Bharathi Vs The State of Telangana

Maloth Tarachand Vs The State of Telangana